It's the whole "RELATIVE VALUE" point jtpops kept pounding home last night.

In BL World, every single is worth .3271(or whatever) of a run. But we know 9 singles spread out over 9 innings that scores 0 runs does not have the same RELATIVE VALUE of 3 singles in 1 inning that plates a run.


As an example, our lead-off hit a 3 run homer with two down the other day in our tourney. I followed with a double and our 3rd hitter, the best hitter on the team, flew out to end the inning. I'm standing in LF thinking "That was a wasted double. I'd have been better off making an out so our best hitter could lead off with no outs." That's dumb but, after the fact, it's probably true. That double had ZERO RELATIVE VALUE and, quite honestly, might have had NEGATIVE RELATIVE VALUE after the fact.

It's not just RELATIVE VALUE, it's also how things fit within the particular context of the game situation.

I again managed my son's Babe Ruth (ages 13-15) team this spring. So many in-game strategy decisions are impacted by the particular game situation. Is it early in the game, or is it late in the game? Are we way ahead, way behind, or is it a tight game? Where are we in the batting order? Do I want to risk a stolen base RIGHT NOW based on who's at the plate and who's on deck (sometimes yes, sometimes no, even with the same base runner).

BL's stats are attempting to assign a specific, fixed number to an event. But that number both ignores relative value and context (which are very closely related; almost, but not quite, the same thing). He'll argue that those things are all baked into his numbers since they are based on averages over all game situations for an entire season (or number of seasons). But when dealing with a very specific in-game situation, multi-season averages to determine the value of something that just happened doesn't mean ****. My #9 hitter drawing a walk and bringing us around to the top of the order when we're down to our last out of the game has a lot more value than my #6 hitter drawing a walk in that same situation if there's a significant drop off in ability when I get to my 7/8/9 hitters.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I said something similar about 60 pages ago when BL said "You already agreed with me. An out is an out."

He's arguing season/career. Everyone else is arguing situation/game/series. Yet, somehow, he keeps saying "No, we're arguing....." as if everyone should discuss his specific point. Of course, in BL's World of Delusion, he probably does believe he's the only one making a point.

He's trying to do this in a vacuum. And that's why stats are a tool for analysis. Not and end all statement of fact.

Commuting the sin of crossing sports here, how valuable as Claude Lemieux in the NHL to his teams? In the playoffs he was diesel year in and year out. His stats will never tell the complete story for him.

Trying to think of a comparable baseball player...

BL is like me when I read my first Bill James abstract. This one, I believe:



Of course, I was 19 and soon realized that stats were nothing more than a tool to review the big picture. I imagine, at some point, he'll mature and recognize the same thing.

BL feels that he's the smartest person in the room because of his knowledge of advanced stats.

But the truth is that he becomes the stupidest person in the room when he actually tries to apply his knowledge. This thread is his legacy.

An example:

BL sees that the average temperature in Connecticut, over the course of an entire year, is around 50 degrees.

BL concludes that appropriate clothing to wear if you live in CT would be long pants, and a light shirt, with maybe a light sweater or jacket. That's what you should wear every day of the year. Because the average temperature is 50.

On a cold January day when it's blustery and in the high teens, you'll freeze your *** off in BL's recommended attire.

On a hot July day, when it's humid and in the high 80's, you'll be sweating your *** off in BL's recommended attire.

But he will insist that you are dressed appropriately. Because it's CT, and the average temperature is 50 degrees.

"None of this changes the premise that, over the course of a season, how a player makes his outs does not matter." - BL, 6/29/2016 11:14 PM

That's practical application of facts and common sense.

BL doesn't understand what those are.

But if the economy is bad, that 50 degrees will feel hotter. In a strong economy, temperature feels cooler due to the excess of dollars.

Posted by tecwrg on 6/30/2016 8:12:00 AM (view original):
It's not just RELATIVE VALUE, it's also how things fit within the particular context of the game situation.

I again managed my son's Babe Ruth (ages 13-15) team this spring. So many in-game strategy decisions are impacted by the particular game situation. Is it early in the game, or is it late in the game? Are we way ahead, way behind, or is it a tight game? Where are we in the batting order? Do I want to risk a stolen base RIGHT NOW based on who's at the plate and who's on deck (sometimes yes, sometimes no, even with the same base runner).

BL's stats are attempting to assign a specific, fixed number to an event. But that number both ignores relative value and context (which are very closely related; almost, but not quite, the same thing). He'll argue that those things are all baked into his numbers since they are based on averages over all game situations for an entire season (or number of seasons). But when dealing with a very specific in-game situation, multi-season averages to determine the value of something that just happened doesn't mean ****. My #9 hitter drawing a walk and bringing us around to the top of the order when we're down to our last out of the game has a lot more value than my #6 hitter drawing a walk in that same situation if there's a significant drop off in ability when I get to my 7/8/9 hitters.

That's my entire point, you don't get to choose when events happen.

You don't only get to ground out when it might be slightly beneficial. You also ground out at the worst possible time. You don't always hit a double with the bases loaded, sometimes you hit it with two out and no one on.

If you argue that how a player makes his outs matter, you're arguing that, in general, a strikeout is worse than other outs, regardless of situation.

It is almost every time. A strikeout carries 0 positive value. None.

The ONLY circumstance when a K is the better option is if the batter is going to ground into a DP. And that doesn't happen as often as you and dahs seem to think.

The two of you saying "I'll take a guy who K's all the time over a guy who grounds out all the time" is quite possibly the dumbest statement in this thread. And that's saying a lot.

Posted by Jtpsops on 6/30/2016 10:01:00 AM (view original):
It is almost every time. A strikeout carries 0 positive value. None.

The ONLY circumstance when a K is the better option is if the batter is going to ground into a DP. And that doesn't happen as often as you and dahs seem to think.

The two of you saying "I'll take a guy who K's all the time over a guy who grounds out all the time" is quite possibly the dumbest statement in this thread. And that's saying a lot.

Hence the value discussion. GIDP don't happen as often as profictive outs, but the difference in value between a productive and non-productive out is small. The GIDP is significantly worse.

Says you. It's clear you're still failing to grasp the concept of relative value. With one out and a runner on third in a tie game, the difference between a K and a flyball is huge. With a runner on first, one out and your team up 10-2, a DP really doesn't hurt that much.

Once again, all about context.

It's official. This thread is BL's "Lefty 2B" thread.

It goes into the WIS Forums "Hall of Fame".